1983-2011 Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 RSS today said it was opposed to the concept of live-in relationship, which was "against the humanity and the Indian culture". "The Sangh is against live-in relationships because it is against the humanity and also against the Indian traditions and culture," said RSS joint secretary Dattatraya Hosbale, speaking to reporters on the first day of `Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha', the organisation's highest decision-making body. Live-in relationships should be discouraged even in the West, the religious leaders were voicing concern over such new lifestyles, he said. "It is our responsibility to keep the institution of family intact," Hosbale said, when asked about recent initiative of a local NGO to facilitate live-in matches for senior citizens. Hosbale also said that RSS endorsed "a three-generation family system, consisting of grand-parents, parents and children." If there is a problem, a single grandparent can live in `Gurukul Ashrams' promoted by (the late RSS veteran) Nanaji Deshmukh, he said. He also said that Sangh advocated a no-TV day concept. The ongoing meeting, he said, was discussing the issue of natural resources among other things. RSS was of the view that all natural resources, particularly water, should be treated as the property of the public, and a resolution on the issue would be passed, he added. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/RSS-slams-live-in-relationships--says-it-is-against-humanity/924612/ cant live with your gf guys, its against the humanity:giggle:
Zap_Brannigan Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 but breeding like rabbits is part of indian culture..
punjabi_khota Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Is it a surprise ? So RSS or any religion-based organization in the ****ing world is supposed to support live-in ? :hmmm: Fact is live-in is against everything a structured society stands for, hence all institutions feel threatened by it and hence oppose it.
Clarke Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Even the Indian judiciary can not stand live-in. :hmmmm: In its ruling, the bench asked, Ÿhen two adults want to live together, what is the offence? Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_supreme-court-quashes-cases-against-tamil-actress-khushboo_1376477
DomainK Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 :hmmmm: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_supreme-court-quashes-cases-against-tamil-actress-khushboo_1376477 The Indian courts are bringing in laws to grant a live-in girl friend a wife's status. They are essentially attempting to forcibly convert live-ins into marriages.
Raghav_12 Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Well, live-in relationships undermine institution of marriage so this opposition from various quarters. Don't see much problem with that. However calling it against humanity a bit too much.
ViruRulez Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 The Indian courts are bringing in laws to grant a live-in girl friend a wife's status. They are essentially attempting to forcibly convert live-ins into marriages. That would destroy the whole concept of live-in. Just think of one year of live-in and then you need to give away half your property to the partner. At least in marriage it would be a decade or two. In such a scenario of a live-in getting a wife's status, a couple of live-ins would mean loss of all your hard earned money and property. LOL :giggle:
Zelig Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 That would destroy the whole concept of live-in. Just think of one year of live-in and then you need to give away half your property to the partner. At least in marriage it would be a decade or two. In such a scenario of a live-in getting a wife's status' date=' a [b']couple of live-ins would mean loss of all your hard earned money and property. LOL :giggle: :((
Sir john Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 mine many friends live with here gf in live-in relationship it is culture now.
DomainK Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 That would destroy the whole concept of live-in. Just think of one year of live-in and then you need to give away half your property to the partner. At least in marriage it would be a decade or two. In such a scenario of a live-in getting a wife's status' date=' a couple of live-ins would mean loss of all your hard earned money and property. LOL :giggle:[/quote'] Essentially, yes. But it's a little different. The alimony law holds that all the property of the two married individuals will be considered combined property and the partner with the higher earning or wealth will have to pay alimony to the other partner, which means that in case of a rich wife and a poor husband, the wife will pay the husband. However, in case of live-in, the woman gets the wife's status, but the man does not get the husband's status, which means the man has no rights, but the woman has all the rights that a wife should have. The courts have potentially opened a gate for gold diggers. The law is now literally an ally of all gold digging women.
Mariyam Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Even the Indian judiciary can not stand live-in. That's incorrect. There is a thread on the topic where I and Vijay Sharma had a brief ( whom am I kidding :D ) discussion on the subject. I'm too happy right now to look for it. The search function is your friend. :D Edit: Some discussions here
ViruRulez Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Essentially, yes. But it's a little different. The alimony law holds that all the property of the two married individuals will be considered combined property and the partner with the higher earning or wealth will have to pay alimony to the other partner, which means that in case of a rich wife and a poor husband, the wife will pay the husband. However, in case of live-in, the woman gets the wife's status, but the man does not get the husband's status, which means the man has no rights, but the woman has all the rights that a wife should have. The courts have potentially opened a gate for gold diggers. The law is now literally an ally of all gold digging women. Gender bias yet again by Indian courts and Indian law if that happens. Indian males are always taken for granted. Anything bad in India seems to be thrust on men and females still considered sati-savitri. No wonder the no. of female gold diggers have increased rapidly in the last decade from Bollywood to dowry laws and society. :protest: After considering the pros and cons, some advice for young guys living in a live-in relationship if this law comes into effect to avoid losses. These might be considered VR's 3 tenets of liveinism: :antijinx: 1) Live-in with with a girl with nearly the same earnings only. And only with a working girl. That would mean the savings would be similar at the end of he live-in. So, combined property theory might not result in loses for you. 2) Do not live-in in your own property. In fact, do not transfer any property in your name including your paternal property. Let them remain under your parents' name. 3) If possible, do not purchase a property upfront during the live-in period. Either go for rent or for home loan. And make sure the home loan in both of your name and you divide the installments between both of you. Hope this would help aspiring live-in guys pre-plan the same accordingly if such a law comes into effect. :giggle:
beetle Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 The Indian courts are bringing in laws to grant a live-in girl friend a wife's status. They are essentially attempting to forcibly convert live-ins into marriages. Not really...the attempt is to give security to women in live in relationship for a long time similar to women in a marriage.
beetle Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 >>>>>"The Sangh is against live-in relationships because it is against the humanity and also against the Indian traditions and culture," said RSS joint secretary Dattatraya Hosbale, :hysterical: So are the hot pants ...even khaki ones:hysterical: Bloody jokers.
ViruRulez Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 Not really...the attempt is to give security to women in live in relationship for a long time similar to women in a marriage. Interesting. That aspect. So, what is that time period and where is that mentioned. And how does the court derive on the conclusion that the couple has been living for that time period. Do they check with the neighbors. And what is they were just friends at the start and not live-ins? What if they were living in adjacent houses at the start and not in the same apartment as in live-in? And who confirms the time period and what proof would suggest that unless there is a registrar of live-ins in the future :giggle:
beetle Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 I guess decide karna court ke haath mein hoga....waisay itna kyon darte ho tum log? mummy ki pasand ki ladki se shaadi karke khush raho...:--D
Recommended Posts